ADulay,

there are 3 things that can happen if you observe a string of results:

a single event - Black Red Red (the black is a single event aka one single)
a double event - Black Red Red Black ( Red Red is a double event aka a series of 2)
a triple event or bigger - Black Red Red Red Red Black (Red Red Red Red is a triple event or bigger aka series of 3 or superior)

representing 3 possible streams of play

lwwlwwlwwwwwlwwlwwlwwwwwwlwll Odd/Even

So this is a result (a very good one) where it generates this entire string before all 3 states show up.

9/27 ends up in WW situation
6/27 end up in WL situation

so 15/27 end up starting with a Win

7/27 en up in LW situation, break even.

There is the 313 exception resulting in a LLW, all the other 4 end up in three Losses.
_____

I wonder about what kind of progression would be more suitable to this expectations.

more hand testing.
Continuing to explore this idea that 3 states will not show up in succession: 123 or 132 or 213 or 312.

Possibilities are (27 permutations):

111 ww
112 wl
113 wl

121 lw
122 lw
123 LLL

131 lw
132 LLL
133 lw

211 lw
212 lw
213 LLL

221 wl
222 ww
223 ww

231 wl
232 ww
233 ww

311 lw
312 LLL
313 llw

321 wl
322 ww
323 ww

331 wl
332 ww
333 ww

So, not chasing anything, looking for most common situations.

 
"meaning that isolated superior streaks will be less likely than clustered superior streaks.-"

Is not in fact the opposite?


 

QuoteFirst sequence is the natural B/P succession, second succession is our main random walk:

What you mean by "our main random walk"?

You observe the first pair of series of 2 Vs Larger Series, and the pair after that is what you consider to be, more often than not, different from the first pair formed?

let me add up that this is just one thing you can measure (Singles Vs Series).
There are many dimensions of the distribution you can measure.
Sputnik is the real person that has been teaching this in every forum, based on marigny de grilleau work.

So if you aggregate many dimensions with many EC, betting opportunities present themselves much more often.

It is really hard to code, and that i know off it has never been done before, despite the attempts.

i am sorry. How could i write this post without revealing what is all about...

r
r
r
B
B
r
B
r
B
B
r
B
r
B
r
r
B
B
r
B
r
B
r
B
r
B
r
B
B
B - stops growing
B
B
B
r
B
r
r
B
r
r
B
r
B
B
r
r
r - starts to return
B
r
r
r
B
r
r
r
r
r
B
r
r
B
B
r
r
r
B
B
B
B
B
B
r
r
B
B
B
r
r
B
r
r
B


so here you have a string of red and black results, (they are real).
if you observe singles Vs series you will find an imbalace.
there are many more singles than series in a window of 20 events.
this singles run stops with the presence of a series.
after it stops it might continue.
or another series will follow and it starts correction.
at this precise point you have a tendency for correction to manifest itself.
so in a window of the same size of events you can expect (gamble) that more series will start to show up.
In my experience, more often than not they really do.

There is one negative aspect of this type of strategy. It takes a long time to find a perfect window. this situation does happen once or twice per EC at every 1000 spins.
My workaround has been to measure more EC groups at the same time, like 6 streets vs 6 streets or kimo lee stars or any other grouping you fancy. You also can and should apply it to strings of losses and wins of pre-designated bets as ftl or obl etc...

There are many details to be explained. but this is it in a nutsheel.
i would be glad to answer any questions.

Cheers

i believe i now understand that is beneficial to wait for the 3rd state to happen after restarting.

omg

After reading this awsome bac thread i decides to see what happens if we apply it to roulette Even chances.
Will play against 3 states repeating.
Instead of observing the pure results Red Black High Low etc, i observe and apply it to the string that is formed comparing present 10 results against previous 10.
It is easier to observe than to explain.
I wonder what fluctuation i have if i treat 3 strings of bets at same time.
I ignore the zero.

Guess i just got lucky, i will keep testing this.
Best Regards

Quote from: Blue_Angel on July 30, 2016, 10:29:45 PM
Let me put it another way, I bet always same as last decision and I'm having the incredible "luck" to have 50 consecutive decisions going on alternating fashion (choppy) like this:  B P B P B P...etc
Even if it seems extremely rare to impossible to occur such event, at the end is just 25 decisions for the player and 25 for the banker which reflects precisely the 50/50 probability of the events.
On the other hand, if I was betting always the same side would it be possible to have 50 consecutive for the other side??
I think you got my point, both of these situations seems almost unrealistic, but in the first case, after all what happened was a 50/50 distribution, what's odd with what probability theory dictates?!

both events have same probability and you're grown enough to accept that

Quote from: MarkTeruya on July 24, 2016, 12:22:05 AM
Progressions are personal to the player, many options would be viable if people decide to go down that path.

The thing that should spark peoples interest is the +8 flat betting (thanks for posting the shoe).

If the bet selection shows some superiority, even in terms of dispersion, it should be tested flat-betting.
Congratulations Nick for the great work

Quote from: Albalaha on July 22, 2016, 02:31:06 AM
   Nice way to run away when have nothing to prove what you said.

I did not invite you to participate and put your dream fallacies without any mathematical basis.

Even if we know for sure that the next 24 spins will have at least 4 wins, we can't win with this knowledge alone. 4 wins could come in any scatter and there is no way to beat them in any reasonable table lime. So how did playing after certain SD help? It does not.

It is possible and it is real, despite what you may think. I have seen it proven and i experience it everyday. It is a perception of reality you have to embrace and live with. Others might know some things you ignore.
I understand sputnik getting away from the discussion, as it doesn't seem you have the humility to learn otherwise. It seems to me you expect knowledge to be given to you for free with no effort or interest on your side. To prove you wrong isn't a motive strong enough to make others share their knowledge. It's the attitude. No hard feelings.